Battle of World Views

In a February 2015 article in The Times of Israel, blogger Hussein Aboubakr, a Muslim, writes about the truth of the "Moderate Muslim."  He states that, "In my childhood I was told that every day that passes on the Islamic nation without a caliphate is a sin. That the failures and miseries of the Muslim world started the moment we gave up conquests and wars against the infidels. That our prosperity depends on conquering new lands, converting new believers, looting new resources and enslaving more women. I was taught that a Jew is essentially a demon in flesh and that it is our destiny as good Muslims to kill them all. I was regularly fueled by battle stories and stories of lethal feuds of seventh century Arabia. It was not just me, a small child in Cairo, who was raised with these great apocalyptic prophecies, it was also so many people from all around the globe."

The article covers the issue of the so-called "Moderate Muslim" in much more detail.  but his key point is:

"My argument is, we are using the label “moderate” for everyone who is not trying to kill us regardless of that person’s actual views. We are in a very bad situation to the extent that we have confused moderation with self-interest. The majority of the Muslim world may not be moderate, but rather acting in its daily life from a purely self-interested point of view. This is a very good thing. We should encourage all Muslims to act and preserve their self-interests. But we should not lie to them about the nature of their religious ideas."

Facts are facts.  This is a contest between world views. The question is, how do you combat a world view?

The West has continued to meddle, since the 1950s (see The History of Folly), in the affairs of Muslim countries by propping up monster dictators and most recently bombing many innocent civilians, we take what were for many, many years, self-interested, if bigoted, Muslims and radicalize them to fight against us by sacrificing their own lives. Most people in the Middle East personally know people who have been killed by western weapons.

And, the dirty secret is, groups like ISIS, know this. They know that if they pull off a Paris type attack, it is likely that the west will retaliate by massive bombing attacks and other military actions that will kill more innocents and, therefore create more and more recruits for ISIS. It's the exact opposite from what we would think.

The definition of insanity is to continuing doing what you have always done and expect different results. I don't know the whole answer, but what we have been doing isn't working...has never worked in the Middle East. If you're old enough, and have a memory longer than the average American, you can remember the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. There was a lot of discussion then that the USSR was crazy if they thought they could really win in a country of zealots who fight a guerrilla war. That these people had been attacked for centuries and never truly conquered.

Why, then, do we believe we can transform these zealots to western democracy by bombing them back to the stone age? It doesn't work. We need to consider new ideas...we need to consider that the same morons who brought us Obamacare are the same people who run our international policy. Why do we trust them at all?

We need to get a longer view of history...be honest about that history...and as free people, need always to question the motivations and actions of our elected (and non-elected) representatives.

North Korea: The Mouse That Roared?

In 1959, a film starring Peter Sellers, called The Mouse That Roared, was released.  The Internet Movie Database (imdb.com) describes the plot like this:

"An impoverished backward nation declares a war on the United States of America, hoping to lose, but things don't go according to plan. The Duchy of Grand Fenwick decides that the only way to get out of their economic woes is to declare war on the United States, lose and accept foreign aid. They send an invasion force to New York (armed with longbows) which arrives during a nuclear drill that has cleared the streets."

This reminds me of current day North Korea.  North Korea is a country devastated by years of corrupt, centralized, communist control of the economy.  The CIA World Fact Book estimates the entire GDP of the country is only $40 Billion.  It further describes their economy:

North Korea, one of the world's most centrally directed and least open economies, faces chronic economic problems. Industrial capital stock is nearly beyond repair as a result of years of under-investment,  shortages of spare parts, and poor maintenance. Large-scale military spending draws off resources needed for investment and civilian consumption. Industrial and power output have stagnated for years at a fraction of pre-1990 levels. Frequent weather-related crop failures aggravated chronic food shortages caused by on-going systemic problems, including a lack of arable land, collective farming practices, poor soil quality, insufficient fertilization, and persistent shortages of tractors and fuel. Large-scale international food aid deliveries as well as aid from China has allowed the people of North Korea to escape widespread starvation since famine threatened in 1995, but the population continues to suffer from prolonged malnutrition and poor living conditions. 

This is a country on the verge of collapse...if it weren't for foreign aid, they would have already collapsed and starved.

There is no way they can believe that they can actually prevail in a military contest against the South...let alone the United States.  In 1990, I remember the media telling us all how dangerous Iraq was.  We were told that they had the fourth largest standing-army in the world...the largest tank force...and they knew how to wage desert warfare.  The war was, in effect, over in 100 hours.  And, at least Iraq had oil money.  North Korea has no chance what-so-ever.  Even if they do have a nuclear weapon...it is probably only one, or two.  Then they have to be able to deliver it and set it off.  I think chances are better than even that, as in the movie, the bomb could be nothing but a dud.

It would not surprise me if Kim Jong Un's current saber rattling and bluster is nothing more than a scheme to get foreign countries to make concessions, in the form of pay-offs, as an attempt to keep his regime in power. I cannot think of any other possible reason for such foolhardy brinkmanship by North Korea other than hoping to get bought off for "peace."

While I don't think we should take any threat of nuclear attack lightly...I also can't quite take these clowns completely seriously either.  What will their price be?  $40 Billion and Starbucks franchise rights?  Maybe a McDoanlds in Pyongyang?  Whatever it is, we cannot pay it...we cannot allow ourselves to be shaken down by this ridiculous boy dictator.

The best thing for a roaring mouse is a simple mouse trap.

Budget Cuts - No Sacred Cows

This is a challenge to all Americans...but especially to those who call themselves conservative...mostly because those who call themselves liberal really don't think there's a problem.  With the large deficit and debt our country faces, we must be willing to look at all areas of the Federal budget for potential spending cuts.  We must not be like so many others who say, "It's okay to cut those people's favorite program, but you can't cut mine." We must be willing to sacrifice our own "sacred cows."

For modern conservatives, one of the most sacred areas of governmental spending is the military budget. Providing for the "common defense" is, actually, one of the few, enumerated powers of the Federal government. We need to fund a strong and effective military that can carry out their constitutionally mandated role of defense.  But, if we are to be intellectually honest with ourselves, we must be willing to admit that it is possible that the government bureaucrats in military procurement could be just as untrustworthy as the bureaucrats in the rest of government.  After all, the Department of Defense is the only department of government that is not subject to outside audits.  Just maybe, there might be a little room for some waste and corruption there?  Maybe?

Beware the Military Industrial Complex!  Growing up I thought this was just some term that hippie, commie-freaks used to speak out against our military power...and they did.  But that is not the origin of the term or the warning.  It came from the farewell speech of President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1961.  Eisenhower, of course, was no stranger to the military, being a West Point graduate who became the Supreme Allied Commander of the European Theater of Operation during WWII, and a two-term President of the United States.  I think he knew a little about that of which he spoke.

While Eisenhower understood that, "A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction."  He recognized that the "conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry" was new to America and that "the total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government."  It was Eisenhower who warned:

 "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

In 2001, during as Senate hearing, the late Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) questioned a requested increase in the defense budget by saying, "How can we seriously consider a $50 billion increase in the defense budget when DoD's own auditors say the department cannot account for $2.3 trillion in transactions in one year alone?"  As much as I disagreed with most anything the late king of pork, Senator Byrd said...when you're right, you're right. Then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, replied by saying, "It is...ah...I was going to say terrifying."  Rumsfeld continued:

"I doubt, to be honest, that people inside the department are going to be capable of sorting this out.  I have a feeling its going to take some folks from outside to come in and look at this, and put in place a process that over a period...and I regret to say, but I've seen how long things take...a period of years to sort it out.  And, I think it'll probably take the cooperation of Congress to try to get the system so you can actually manage the financial aspects of that institution, rather than simply report on things that have happened imperfectly."

Questioning the military budget does not, in any way, dishonor or disparage our men and women in uniform.  On the contrary, it values them more in that it insists that they not be used as pawns on a geopolitical chess board with the goal of accruing power and wealth to the members of the military industrial complex.  Our citizen soldiers fight to maintain safety and liberty of their country and the ones they love...not to prop up a corrupt government and their industrialist cronies.

Think about it this way, though many have claimed that the Gulf War and Iraq War were fought for oil...where is this oil we have fought for?  Oil supply is down, gas prices are soaring...it obviously wasn't a very successful venture, was it.  More likely, though,  it was fought to benefit the defense industry rather than the oil industry.  You see, if you have a very large stockpile of bombs, ammunition, and weapons systems, you really don't need to buy any more...unless you use up what you have.  For that, you need a war.  I'm just sayin'.

But, regardless of the relative merits of our actions in the Middle East, the defense procurement process has a large potential for fat and waste...as well as corruption.  Dr. Thomas E. Woods Jr. gives a little of the detail in the video below.  As you watch it, keep an open mind, maintain your intellectual honesty, and be willing to sacrifice your own sacred cows.

Blindly Toward War

In this interview on Russia Today, Michael Scheuer, former CIA intelligence officer and Chief of the Bin Laden unit, offers some unique and informed opinions about U.S. and NATO dealings in the Middle East.  What he has to say is sobering and more than a little frightening.  He believes that a very realistic possibility of war with Iran will necessarily lead to reinstatement of the draft in the U.S.

The only reason that the U.S. has been able to interfere in the internal affairs of so many other countries over the years is that we have allowed the Federal government to consolidate and centralize its power and reach far beyond its Constitutional power to defend the country.  Very little of what we have done in the past 100 years has been strictly for defensive reasons.

And, contrary to what the Left and their media sycophant media drones will tell you, it is the Progressive Left who has lead us into the most wars in the past 100 years.  This is because of the power it gives them to consolidate their power even further.

"Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debt and taxes and armies are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people...[There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and....degeneracy of manners and morals....No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." ~ James Madison

Will we be lead blindly to war?